Tags
Bible, Christ, English Standard Version, God, King James Version, Koine Greek, Language, Masoretic Text, Septuagint, The Message, The Voice, TNIV, Translations
Biblia Sacra Vulgata… King James Version… New American Standard Version… New International Version… English Standard Version… Holman Christian Standard… Today’s New International Version… New International Version (1984)… American Standard Version… New American Standard Version Update… Revised Standard Version… New Revised Standard Version… New Living Translation… Swahili New Testament… Arabic Life Application Bible… La Biblia De Las Americas… Het Boek… Chinese Union Bible…
Some of these translations are familiar and some of them are likely unfamiliar to you. Only a few translations are listed above, but I could go on. The number of translations of the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is remarkable. Yet, there are so many more that have yet to be translated into native languages around the world. It’s truly remarkable though. Consider how many English translations of the Bible exist. How many can you think of at the top of your head without looking back to the paragraph above? Probably quite a few. If you can think of more than 5, that’s really a lot considering the number of translations in other languages around the world.
Now, there is a very important word I would like to elaborate on just a bit and that word is TRANSLATION. What is a translation? A translation is the transmission of the text/speech of one language into another. Simple enough, right? Well, not really. Sometimes, if we are used to our native language only it can be difficult to understand the challenge of translating a language. Let’s do another little experiment to show the difficulty, shall we? Let’s take the word run and I want you to think of the number of usages and different meanings for this word alone in the English language. According to dictionary.com, there are at least 50 different definitions/usages of the word run. That’s right, 50. Now, think of someone learning the English language for the first time and attempting to translate the most basic sentences such as: The water is running; Let’s go for a run; Make sure and run it through first; I ran to the store; I was nearly run over; etc, etc, etc. You can see now, some of the difficulty that people might have learning the English language when it is not their native language.
Well, my point is that the list of famous versions of the Bible at the beginning of this post are all translations and the same difficulty that people have in trying to figure out how to translate languages today into their own native language is similar to the difficulty that translation committees often have in translating the Bible. Not every word translates word-for-word from one language to another because languages are different and don’t always use the same words or expressions.
The reason I am writing this post is that some people defend their preferred English translation of the Bible as if it were the original words spoken by God and recorded by Moses on Mount Sinai or the original words that David used when writing the Psalms or that Jesus spoke when giving His famous Sermon. The fact of the matter is that the Bible consisted of the Old Testament before and when Jesus was raised from the dead, not modern English. The Old Testament was recorded in Hebrew and a little Aramaic, and believe it or not, the Old Testament was recorded in Greek (Koine Greek, to be exact). The first organized collection of the books of the Old Testament as a whole into a book was by Ptolemy II in the 3rd century BC who requested the Old Testament translated and collected into the language of the day which was Koine Greek. This translation was called the Septuagint (LXX), and is known by the same name today. Later, it was collected and compiled into a Hebrew and Aramaic Bible with vowel markings which didn’t accompany the original scrolls in order to better know how to pronounce and accent the ancient language of Hebrew and to memorize it. The original text comes from scrolls dating long before, but the formal and more finalized composition into a book came from scribes in the 7th through 11th centuries around Palestine named the Masoretes. The text of the Hebrew Bible today, in the original Hebrew, is known then as the Masoretic Text (MT).
Now, the New Testament was in the context of the 1st century Mediterranean world which was ruled by the Roman Empire, but still bore the marks of the previous rule which was Greek/Macedonian. Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world from parts of what is Europe today to other parts of the Mediterranean to as far as India, Alexander the Great conquered and as he conquered much of the world he also spread culture from his native land wherever he conquered. So, parts of Macedonian-Greek culture spread throughout much of the known world. Greek buildings, games, attire, infrastructure, and most importantly language became commonplace. The key word is ‘common.’ Thus, the Greek from that period is called Koine Greek, meaning common Greek.
The Septuagint was written during this time period when Greek was common throughout much of the world, then some time later the parts of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek. Even after Jesus ascended into Heaven, Latin was the language of the Roman military and was primarily centralized in the Italian peninsula, Aramaic was primarily spoken in Palestine, but Koine Greek was known throughout the Roman world as the language of commerce that everyone would need to know much like people today learn English or Chinese throughout the world.
So, there you have it. The Bible was originally recorded in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek by the original authors and later codified into formal books based off the scrolls and letters (or bits of parchment or ostraka). Now, it wasn’t until the 14th century that the first English translation of the Bible was translated by John Wycliffe, but Wycliffe only had the Latin translation to use for his translation. You might recognize the name from Wycliffe Bible translators named after him today. When the printing press was invented the first printed book was the Latin translation of the Bible in the 15th century (though the Latin translation came much earlier thanks to Jerome in the 4th century). In the 16th century prominent Reformer Martin Luther and famous English language scholar William Tyndale produced respective translations of the New Testament in their languages of German and English. Then, in 1611 you have King James I sponsor the making of a full English Bible which was based on all the previous English translations and some of the late Byzantine Greek manuscripts. It was a masterful effort with a great formal, organized committee of translators and done using a beautiful version of the English language.
A few other English translations appeared, but nothing gained acceptance like the KJV until Noah Webster offered a translation in the 19th century who also wrote the Dictionary of the English Language. His translation was eventually called the English Revised Version. Then, at the turn of the 20th century America produced the American Standard Version which was nearly identical to the ERV. It was updated in the ’70s and called the New American Standard Version. The committee went back to the earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in order to form their translation and make it as best they could, word-for-word. Then, fans of the KJV wanted to update the translation and formed the New King James Version. Also, a new translation called the New International Version came out receiving harsh criticism for a less literal and more contemporary English reading, but later became one of the most popular English translations used.
An attempt to find something in between the very literal NASB and the NIV was done at the beginning of the 21st century to form the English Standard Version (ESV), which is my personal favorite English translation. The Bible is also being translated into languages all over the world so people in non-English speaking countries can read the Bible in their own language. So, there you have it. A bit of Bible history for you.
Now, the full reason for this post… There are some today who believe that the Bible first came to us in English. They treat their English Bible translation as if it were the original words that God spoke or the original words authors used in writing the inspired text. People react strongly to things like The Message by Eugene Peterson or the TNIV or the new Bible some are in an uproar about called The Voice.
I remember back in college when I first learned Koine Greek and was translating 1 John (beginner’s translating) how one student as a joke walked into class and placed a copy of The Message New Testament on my Greek professors podium and how when he walked in his reaction was to get right into his lecture and without stopping for a moment during his lecture he grabbed The Message and tossed in the waste basket in the corner of the classroom and the class responded in laughter. My professor and others in college criticized The Message because it wasn’t a translation, but rather a paraphrase and an interpretation by one person of the Bible. Rather, it’s more a sort of readable commentary than a Bible many would argue. The negative impression rubbed off on me and I too felt much the same concerning The Message. However, as long as it is emphasized that it isn’t actually a translation of the Bible, I don’t think there is anything really wrong with it. The author’s purpose is for contemporary people to understand the Bible, whereas, with the difficult English wording of many translations of the Bible it is extremely difficult to understand some parts of the Bible (even for scholars).
Then, you have the TNIV which has updated the NIV by factoring in early and better Greek manuscripts than the first translation used, but that’s not all… They also made many parts of the Bible gender-inclusive. This has been highly controversial. The fact is that some parts of the Bible are directed to men and women, but many of these parts only have a masculine word in the original language. For example, you can take Romans 8 where Paul speaks of salvation and he mentions “brothers” as opposed to “brothers and sisters.” The point isn’t to incorporate a liberalism into the Bible or a political correctness. The point is to show that Paul is speaking of salvation and this applies to men and women. He isn’t saying only men are saved by grace through faith, or only men are more than conquerors, or only men have hope in Jesus Christ. However, that’s what it can mean if you take the masculine word into a literal English rendering of men/brothers as opposed to women/sisters. There are also parts of many popular English translations where the original wording is not specific to man or woman, but some translations have taken it as masculine anyway. The TNIV tried to make the Bible more clear for the modern reader. However, though their intention was noble they were believed to be undermining the wording of the Bible by those who held to their English translations of the Bible as the original wording given by God, and the TNIV has become a dated translation replaced by an updated NIV in which the gender-inclusiveness of the TNIV has been scaled down significantly in this new translation, but it has also met great opposition.
(This is part 1 in the series called Let’s talk about the Bible. Please see the next post in this series for the continuation of this post, Let’s talk about the Bible (pt.2).)
You stated that “[The TNIV translators] also made many parts of the Bible gender-neutral;” however, this is inaccurate. The TNIV translators did not use “gender-neutral” langauge, they used “inclusive” langauge in English to represent “inclusive” masculines in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Gender neutral means to translate terms that contain gender in a way that does not convey gender regardless of the intent of the author; inclusive langauge means to translate gender in the way the author intended gender to be communicated. In the biblical langauge, gender is much more prominent than it is in English. For example, we don’t think of things like houses, lamps, cups, etc… as having a gender but in the Biblical langauge everything has gender. In Hebrew, just like Spanish, when we speak of “male children” we can refer to a group of ALL boys or a group of boys and girls, context alone determines which is meant by the term.
The controversy over the TNIV’s use of inclusive langauge stems from two issues. First, there is a concern that the translators have used inclusive langauge in a handful of verses in which many scholars do not believe the original author intended an inclusive meaning; Acts. 6:3 is an example of one such verse. Second, there is a concern that English inclusive masculines are still understood i.e. that English speakers understand terms like “mankind” to refer to men and women, or “mailman” to be a job held by both men and women. English has a long history of inclusive masculine use, and the change towards a more direct inclusive langauge translation is only warranted if the English masculine inclusive is no longer understood.
Note: The TNIV translators have themselves acknowledged that some of their inclusive choices went too far, and in the NIV2011 they have scaled back their use of inclusive langauge.
Benelchi,
By your definition of gender-inclusive language, that is my definition of gender-neutral as relates to this post. I did not mean grammatical neuter as exists in Greek for example, but I simply meant that the translators of the TNIV made some terms include men and women, thus, eliminating gender-specific terminology. As opposed to being male oriented or females oriented, they have made it male and female oriented. You are right, it’s not a negation of gender, but an inclusion. That is what I mean in my post as well.
I did originally include the reason for the new NIV translation and the purpose it serves in being both a scaled down version of the TNIV, and an update of the NIV and TNIV as well. I decided to take that out since my post was too long (before splitting it into 2 posts) and didn’t think it was as relevant to the post considering I merely meant to provide a very concise overview of some of the Bible translations and where they come from in order to speak more directly on the subject of The Voice version of the Bible which is dealt with more thoroughly in the second half of this post, part 2.
Thanks for correcting me on my terminology. I think we both mean the same thing in regards to the TNIV, I simply used a different term to describe it. Again, I fully agree with you here and was simply trying to be concise.
You mention that “The Message” is fine as longs as people recognize that it is a commentary and not a bible; however, this difficulty is that it is being marketed as a bible and in some places it offers a very poor translation of the text.
You also briefly mention “The voice” and this is a bible that is being marketed as valid translation of the text, but it was clearly produced with a postmodern agenda. God as consistently translated as “The Eternal one” even when the underlying text says “Lord” or “Yahweh”, “God’s Law” is translated as simply “God’s word,” etc… In this version their is a strong de-emphasis of God’s Lordship and his Law and the commentary included with many of these passages presents a very reader centric, self centered interpretation of the text. For example, in Psalms 1 the man who does not stand in the way of sinners is translated as “when judgment and sarcasm beckon you, but you refuse.” Is this really a valid translation of this phrase, or is this simply a reflection of the postmodern aversion to identifying anything as “sinful?”
The emphasis in this psalm is on “the Eternal One’s Word,” which is followed immediately by the phrase “is your happiness.” God wants us to stay centered on His unyielding love for us that brings us “happiness.” The phrase “But his delight is in the Law of the Lord” becomes “For you, the Eternal One’s Word is your happiness.” There is no longer any “Law” and the focus changes from God’s Law to my own happiness. The commentary included at the end of this Psalm drives this point home i.e. it says “The emphasis in this psalm is on “the Eternal One’s Word,” which is followed immediately by the phrase “is your happiness.” God wants us to stay centered on His unyielding love for us that brings us “happiness.”” Notice the shift from “God’s Law” which is absent in this translation, to “God’s love” which has become the “emphasis in this psalm.” Yes, God’s love is important and we should rejoice in it, but God’s love is not the focus of this particular psalm. The focus of this Psalm is to call us to avoid the sinful influences of the world around us, and to encourage us desire to know God’s Law. We are promised God’s blessing when we adhere to God’s Law. This is an idea that is completely missing in “The Voices” translation of this passage.
Additionally, some of the players involved in the translation of “The Voice” are also involved in the “Insider Movement” controversy in Islamic missions. They believe that people come into the kingdom of God through their own religious context i.e. a Muslim remains a Muslim, a Buddhist remains a Buddhist, etc… This is the ideology that has brought us the Muslim idomatic translations that have have been in the news for the last few months i.e. translations that look for alternate phrases for “Father” and “Son” (when referring to God the Father and Jesus his Son); omit reference to the cross, and seek alternate langauge for concepts like baptism, etc…, etc…, etc…
Sometimes there are very good reasons for people to oppose a translation and the voice is a translation that the Christian community should oppose.
Matt,
I assumed that you had really meant “inclusive langauge” when you used the term “gender neutral” but it did jump out at me because this is one of the false accusations often made by those accusing the NIV/TNIV/NIV2011 of mistranslating the bible. (I know you were not doing that). And there are also some obscure translations that really do use “gender neutral” langauge i.e. God that parent, Jesus the child, etc…
On a different side, I am also bothered by the proponents of the NIV2011 now using the phrase “gender accurate” to describe their methodology. The problem I have with this term is that their are a handful of disputed passages where many scholars do not believe the NIV2011′s translation is “gender accurate” the verse I quoted in Act.6 is one such example.
Benelchi,
As for your second comment, again, refer to the second half of my post in which I clearly state I do not endorse The Voice. Thanks for your comments.
Pingback: Let’s talk about the Bible. (pt.2) « That I Should Gain
Matt,
I didn’t realize that you had already posted part 2 and so I had not yet read your comments on the voice. I did find the posting.